On-the-Record Press Gaggle by White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby
Via Teleconference
12:10 P.M. EDT
MODERATOR: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining. Kirby has a few words here at the top, and then we’ll take as many questions as we can.
MR. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. I actually do have quite a bit here. I know it’s been a long time since we gaggled, so please bear with me.
First of all, I’m sure you saw the news yesterday that the United States is going to begin the process of transitioning away from the temporary pier in Gaza to other solutions. The Department of Defense has spoken to this. USAID have already spoken to it. I’m not going to go through all the details with you. But I do think it’s important to just, again, put all this into context.
The first thing is that the pier was always supposed to be part of a comprehensive response to the situation in northern Gaza in particular, and it did help enable the development of Cyprus as a port that can be used for inspections and for deliveries directly into Gaza. Aid can now also be inspected in Cyprus and delivered directly into Gaza through Israel’s Ashdod port and crossings into the north.
Second, the pier accomplished a lot. I mean, nearly 20 million pounds of aid delivered. That’s the highest volume of humanitarian assistance that we have ever been able to deliver in the Middle East. And that’s, of course, 20 million pounds of aid that would otherwise have not reached the hungry people of Gaza.
And then third, the deployment of the pier certainly helped secure Israeli commitments to open up additional crossings into northern Gaza. Since the opening of those crossings, we have seen a sustained flow of trucks moving from Jordan directly into northern Gaza, averaging roughly around 200 trucks a day overall. I’ll stress again that that’s still not enough. We still want more. And we’re going to continue to work with the Israelis to see if we can get the number of trucks increased.
That underscores why we are working so hard to try to get a ceasefire deal, because that would give us six weeks of a pause, which would allow us a much greater flexibility in terms of increasing the ground flow of vehicles and aid.
From the very beginning, we said that the pier was going to be temporary; it was not going to be permanent. We said it was not going to be an easy mission, and it certainly wasn’t. It’s complicated stuff to do that, and JLOTS is not designed for the permanent infrastructure, additive capabilities. And of course, we said it was going to be impacted by the weather. And, by God, it was impacted by the weather. And we saw that play out in the eastern Med in the summertime. Again, not a surprise.
But we’re grateful for all the incredible work that was done by the United States military, the men and women of the military, to not only get the pier anchored on several occasions and operate it, but also moving it into position and, of course, helping with the flow of aid coming out of Cyprus onto the pier.
So, an awful lot of good work was done, and the President is very grateful for all the effort that went into it.
And now we’re turning, as we should, to bolstering up the other kind of capabilities that we have, including now Ashdod.
But the pier not only enabled additional aid, it enabled us to work on other initiatives. It gave us some breathing time and space to get Ashdod operational and to get other crossings opened up. And I think it’s — this is just a little bit of context that I think too often gets forgotten when we talk about the pier and the difficulties that the pier sometimes ran into.
So if I could, quickly, turn to Sudan. We continue to be deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict there, which has forced 10 million people to flee their homes. It’s left more than 25 million facing unacceptable levels of food insecurity and nearly the entire country now facing unconscionable violence.
We continue to be disturbed and, frankly, unambiguously condemn the perpetrators of this conflict in the strongest terms. And we call to cease attacks on innocent civilians for unhindered humanitarian access to get to the people that are so desperately in need.
The United States continues, and we will continue going forward, to support the Sudanese people, providing urgently needed lifesaving humanitarian assistance and assistance for those that have been internally displaced by the conflict.
That’s why, earlier today, our Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, announced another $203 million in humanitarian assistance for people affected by the conflict in Sudan, including refugees and others who have fled to neighboring countries.
And the U.S. Agency for International Development is announcing $69 million in humanitarian assistance for crisis-affected people in Chad, including more than 600,000 Sudanese refugees and 200,000 Chadian returnees from Sudan who are in need of protection and lifesaving assistance. And that, of course, includes food, medicine, and nutritional support. So, a lot going on there.
And then, if I could just turn quickly to irregular migration. Since President Biden announced the executive order to secure the border in June, encounters at the southwest border have decreased by more than 50 percent. We’re also taking steps to go after smuggling criminal organizations that prey on and profit from the most vulnerable people.
That’s why today, in coordination with our Mexican partners, Treasury sanctioned the Abdul Karim Conteh transnational criminal organization, and also sanctioned Abdul Karim Conteh, his wife, and two members for supporting this human smuggling organization. Yesterday, the Department of Justice also unsealed an indictment against Abdul Karim Conteh.
We will continue to use all available tools to disrupt these criminal organizations and ensure that they are held to account of the harm that they are inflicting on innocent people.
With that, I can take some questions.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question will go to Steve with Reuters.
Q John, thank you. Two things. Could you give us an update on the President’s health?
And secondly, will he be able to meet with Netanyahu when Netanyahu is in town next week?
MR. KIRBY: Steve, I’m afraid I’m not a reliable source to speak to his health right now and his COVID recovery. I know that he is isolating as appropriate and that the White House physician and the whole team is helping him through this. But I’m afraid I’m not a qualified individual to speak to the recovery efforts on COVID.
On Netanyahu, what I can tell you, Steve, is that, as we’ve said before, we have every expectation that the two leaders will have a chance to see each other while Prime Minister Netanyahu is in town. I can’t tell you at this point, Thursday midday, what that exactly is going to look like. But as we get closer, we’ll certainly be able to provide you some more context.
Obviously, we need to make sure that the President’s health and his recovery from COVID takes priority. And if and how that might affect a discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu, we’re just not in a position today to be able to know.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Colleen with the AP.
Q Hi. Long time no talk. I have a couple questions. So, I wondered if the White House is concerned about Ben-Gvir’s decision to visit the hilltop compound, the mosque, today? I wondered if it was, you know, unnecessarily provocative? Maybe it could disrupt hostage negotiations?
And then I had a question about whether or not you can speak to what the threat matrix looks like right now regarding foreign actors and the presidency, just in the days after the information about Iran, the threat from Iran to Trump. I just wondered if you could sort of talk generally about what the threats look like today when it comes to foreign actors and presidential candidates.
MR. KIRBY: On your first one, I would just say we continue to be concerned about rhetoric and actions that are counterproductive to peace and security in the West Bank. The President has been, I think, pretty strident about his concerns over, for instance, the settler violence. And we have also expressed our concerns about activities and rhetoric by certain Israeli leaders. And those concerns remain valid.
And what we would continue to urge our Israeli counterparts to do is nothing that inflames passions or could lead to or encourage violent activity one way or the other. So I think I’d leave it at that.
On your second question, there’s a — I hope you would understand — a bit of a limit to what I can say. I can tell you that we continue to monitor and watch for any malign activity by foreign actors with respect to our electoral politics in this country, and do everything we can to reassure the American people that that process is safe and secure and will be free and be fair.
With respect to physical manifestations of this — and I think we’ve spoken to this before — we certainly have been mindful of and monitoring the threat specifically from Iran when it comes to officials of the former administration in particular. We’ve been monitoring this for now — for years, all tied to the strike that killed Mr. Soleimani and the Iranians’ desire for retribution for that. And this is something that we’ve been very, very closely monitoring and will
continue to do so.
I don’t have any updates nor, if I did, would I necessarily believe it would be the best thing, for the safety and security of those who might be threatened, for us to speak to it in great granularity, except to say that it’s not something that we have ever lost sight of or stopped monitoring, and also that we continue to communicate as appropriate with those who could be targeted. I’ll leave it at that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Michelle with Bloomberg.
Q Thanks, Admiral. Good morning. Just two on Israel. My colleagues reported just in the last hour that Israeli officials are considering transferring control of the Rafah border crossing to the EU and Palestinians. I’m wondering if you’re in position to confirm and comment on that.
And then separately, I wanted to get your reaction to news — it was a bit of a different tone that the Israeli parliament passed a resolution expressing formal opposition to establishing an independent Palestinian state.
MR. KIRBY: On the first one, I’m not able to confirm those reports. I saw the press reporting just before starting to gaggle, and I’m just not in a position to confirm it.
I would just say what we’ve said before, which is that we want to see that crossing back open; we want to see it open in a sustainable, credible way that can allow for the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza specifically. And we are in constant touch with our counterparts, both in Egypt and in Israel, about trying to achieve that outcome. But I can’t confirm the specific reports.
On the second question, I think the best way I can respond to that is to just reiterate our firm belief in the power and the promise of a two-state solution. And that is not something that President Biden is going to give up on. And we’re going to keep doing everything we can to try to achieve that outcome.
We know it’s not going to happen tomorrow, and we know it’s not going to be without difficulty. And we also know that it requires leadership — strong courage and leadership in the region to bring about that outcome.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Danny with AFP.
Q Hi there. Thanks very much for taking the question. Admiral, I know this isn’t necessarily your bag, but in as much as it concerns national security, do you have any more details on Saturday’s incident in Butler in terms of the shooter, the threat profile? Anything else regarding that? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I don’t, Danny. I’m sorry.
Q Thanks anyway.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Lara with the Wall Street Journal.
Lara, we can’t hear you if you — it looks like you muted yourself.
Okay, we will — oh, and it looks like we lost her.
Our next question will go to Justin with ABC.
Q Hi, John. Thanks for holding this. I wanted to ask about the President again. Can you say if he had department briefings this morning? Is he working while he’s also isolating? Just anything along those lines. Or is he getting a briefing this afternoon? And if so, how did he sound, if you all spoke with him?
MR. KIRBY: He’s — I mean, I think we can all understand that while he’s certainly focused on getting better, as anybody who’s had COVID would want to do, he’s being kept up to speed as appropriate by his leadership team, and certainly that includes on the national security front.
I don’t have any specific briefings to speak to or schedule items, but I do know that he’s being kept updated and up to speed as he normally would.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Patsy with VOA.
Q Thank you. Hi, John. I have two questions. The first one is: Can you confirm reporting that the U.S. privately warned Iran over its suspicious nuclear activities? And is this something that will be discussed with Prime Minister Netanyahu? If there’s anything else you can share ahead of that visit, including the concerns of all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah? That’s my first question. I know it’s a bit cheating.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, there’s a lot. There’s a lot to that.
I’d say, number one, the Iranians should have absolutely zero doubt about where we stand on concerns about any advancement of their nuclear weapons ambitions.
Number two, we send messages to Iran when it’s in our interest, and I’m not going to get into detailing what that looks like or how that feels.
Number three, I can’t think of any meetings that we have with Israeli leaders where we don’t talk about Iran and Iran’s destabilizing activities which continue, to include their ongoing support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis and Hamas.
And I’m sorry, you had a question about Hezbollah specifically?
Q Yeah. How concerned is the administration about the possibility of an all-out war between Israel and Hezbollah at this point?
MR. KIRBY: Well, heck, we’ve been concerned about escalation up there at that border since the very beginning, and those concerns are still valid now. We’re not seeing signs that tell us that there’s, quote, unquote, to use your words, an “all-out war” in the offing here. But there’s a reason why we’ve been applying a whole heck of a lot of intense and personal diplomacy, is to avoid that outcome. And that’s still our concern, and we’re going to keep at that work.
Q Yes. Thank you for that.
And my second question, I guess, is that Turkish President Erdoğan and Syrian President Assad have signaled that they are interested in restoring diplomatic ties with Russia’s blessing.
How does the administration view the possibility of this normalization, considering the potential of Ankara and Damascus working together to further curtail U.S. ally Kurdish groups?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. First of all, I think that was, like, your 17th question.
Q (Laughs.) Yes. I’ve been away for a while, John.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. No, that’s okay. It’s why we do these gaggles.
Look, we’ve seen the reports. It won’t surprise you that we’ll refer you to Mr. Erdoğan to comment on that.
There have been similar reports like this in the past, and nothing has come of them. So we’ll see what happens here. Each nation, you know, of course, has to decide for itself what its foreign relationships are going to look like, and they need to speak to that.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Mike with Washington Examiner.
Q Hi. Thank you for taking my question. I’m going to try on Iran. When did the NSC first hear about this new intelligence? And can you say when it was transmitted to the Secret Service? And does this threat specifically focus on former President Trump, or is it including all of the other officials who have previously been reported on? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: I appreciate your effort to try to get me to talk about intelligence matters, and I hope you can understand that I’m just not going to do that.
We’ve been monitoring this threat, this credible threat, for quite a while. And we will continue to — we will continue to monitor it. We’ll also make the appropriate notifications, particularly to the U.S. Secret Service, as needed. And we did that. And again, that process will continue.
But the last thing that I’m going to do here in a public setting is get into a lengthy discussion about what the intel picture specifically looks like and when and how we have obtained information that we have felt we needed to act on and pass along.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Alex with Politico.
Q Yeah. Hi, John. Thanks for doing this. First question: Knowing that Vice President Harris will be in Indianapolis on July 24th, which is the day of Bibi Netanyahu’s speech, so does that mean she will not be attending his address and, therefore, she will not be sort of behind him during that
speech?
And then secondly, have there been any NSC meetings, national security briefings with the President, or anything like that, any delays in the national security process since the President has been, you know, preoccupied with his political future of being the Democratic nominee over the last couple of days? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: On your first question, I’d refer you to the Vice President’s Office. I think they’re better suited to speak to her schedule. My understanding is that she will, as well as the President, see Prime Minister Netanyahu while he’s here. But as for her specific schedule, I think I’d refer you to them.
And I’m sorry, can you repeat your second question, Alex?
Q Yeah. Just, have there been any, you know, national security briefings with the President, any national security processes, decisions that have had to be delayed or moved or postponed in any way as the President has been understandably busy with his domestic political issues at the moment?
MR. KIRBY: No, not at all.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Jared with Al-Monitor.
Q Hey, John. Thank you for doing this. I know you’ve mentioned a few times that it will take a lot of political courage regarding Israel and, you know, a future Palestinian state. But I guess my question is: Israel’s political opposition hasn’t stepped up, and the Knesset just broadly rejected a two-state solution with this resolution. I mean, what is the administration’s plan B moving forward on this Middle East strategy here?
MR. KIRBY: It’s not about a plan B, it’s still about plan A, which is moving towards the possibility of a two-state solution. And nobody — nobody is blind here to how difficult that’s going to be. We believe that the first priority has got to be getting a ceasefire — getting the ceasefire deal in place, getting those hostages back with their families where they belong, getting six weeks of calm. That’s phase one.
If we get phase one, then negotiations can begin on phase two. And phase two, as the President said himself last May, can get us to a permanent cessation of the hostilities. If you can get that, then you can begin to really start to lay the groundwork for post-conflict governance in Gaza that is free of Hamas but also free of challenges to the security of the Israeli people. And then you can really start laying some tracks towards a potential two-state solution over the long haul.
I mean, one of the things that we were working on, as you know, before the war was normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. We have indications that both sides are still interested in pursuing that outcome. And so, if you can do that, that’s another big milestone potentially towards a more integrated Israel in the region and the possibility of a two-state solution.
So we’re still on plan A, and we believe that that effort is worth the time and the energy to put into it. And that’s what we’re focused on.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Gabby with the Jewish Insider.
Q Hey. Thank you for doing this. A couple of questions. First, to go back to the pier: Yesterday at the briefing, the folks at DOD were calling this “mission complete.” And so, hoping you can say more if that’s your assessment as well, and also where you think things stand right now in terms of what Israel is doing to bring aid in. Are they doing better? You know, you’re going through Ashdod now, so does that mean that you guys are feeling that Israel is being cooperative?
And then also, there’s reports that I’m just seeing now about Brett McGurk in the Middle East, and so I’m hoping you can speak about what he’s doing there.
MR. KIRBY: Brett is traveling in the region, primarily stops in UAE and Jordan. Not unusual for Brett to travel to the Middle East. Of course, that’s kind of his job. So he’s in and out all the time.
On mission complete, “mission complete” meaning the temporary pier, that the work of using and deploying the temporary period is over. And it’ll be disassembled and retrograded, as we say in the military, back to the United States or back to wherever it came from. But that’s what “mission complete.”
What is not complete, as I tried to allude to in my topper, is the effort to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza and to work hard to find — to not only identify additional avenues to do that, but to reinvigorate those avenues that are open. And as I said in my opening statement, the use of the pier gave us time and space not only to make Ashdod now an acceptable alternative for the reception of goods coming from Cyprus, but also working with the Israelis to open up additional crossings. As I said, we got a couple of hundred trucks that are going in every day; not enough.
And so, to your second question about whether Israel is being cooperative or not, they have been. And we have every expectation that they’ll continue to be.
But we’re not resting on laurels here. We’re going to continue to work with them every single day to increase the flow of ground traffic into Gaza to try to get it above what we’re achieving now — about 200 trucks a day.
And if you don’t mind, I’ll take this opportunity to underscore, again, why the ceasefire deal matters so much and why we’re still working so hard on that, because that can give you, at least in phase one, six weeks of calm, no fighting in Gaza, which will dramatically improve the confidence level of aid workers and truck drivers to move around inside Gaza, because it won’t be a combat zone.
So all of this ties into the efforts that we’re working so hard — working so hard on to secure the ceasefire.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Nathan with KAN.
Q Hi. I hope you can hear me now. I wanted to go back to President Biden. Given the fact that he is so involved right now with his political campaign and that he’s not feeling well, can you reassure people in the Middle East — can you commit to the fact that he is still fully involved in the issue of the Gaza war, of the hostage deal? Is there any attempt to pass that on to someone else in the administration, or is the President involved directly in that?
MR. KIRBY: Of course, he is. Of course, he is.
And the fact that he’s got mild COVID symptoms and the fact that he’s obviously running for reelection doesn’t obviate his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief or his leadership over
the national security team, here at the NSC or throughout the interagency. All of that remains absolutely 100 percent in place.
And as I said earlier, even though he’s home recovering from COVID, his team is keeping him up to date and up to speed as appropriate.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will go to Jonathan with Nine Australia.
Q Can you guys hear me there okay?
MODERATOR: Yep, we can.
Q Thanks very much, Admiral. I just wanted to ask you, in relation to how it impacts national security and the administration as a whole, there’s reports in the Washington Post that Barack Obama is talking to allies about his concern over the President’s path to victory. How do reports like these, like the ones we’ve seen about Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, how does that impact the day-to-day work of the administration? And what was the President’s mindset the last time you spoke with him? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to talk about my personal conversations with the President. I would never do that.
And I can’t confirm or speak to reports that you’re alluding to in terms of what former officials may or may not be talking to allies about.
I think the way I’d approach this is just based on, you know, our experience last week at the NATO Summit, where leader after leader approached President Biden and thanked him for his leadership, thanked him for the way that he helped pull NATO together and advance NATO’s capabilities, including increasing in size now by two extra countries.
Leader after leader expressing even more broadly how important American leadership is on the world stage, not just in the Alliance but across the globe.
I mean, you had four countries that weren’t even — that aren’t NATO partners, from the Indo-Pacific, coming to that NATO Summit. You had President Zelenskyy there. It was a demonstration of how much U.S. leadership actually matters. And as the President said, it’s not just American leadership; our partnerships matter.
And this is a president who believes in those partnerships, believes in those alliances, and has invested an incredible amount of energy over the last three and a half years in strengthening them and making them stronger.
And so, I think it was on display for everybody to see that the President’s approach to alliances and partnerships not only is appreciated and respected around the world, it’s needed. And he has every expectation that he’ll continue to lead in that regard.
MODERATOR: Thank you. We’ll try Lara one more time, and then we have to close it out.
Q Hey, can you guys hear me?
MODERATOR: Yep, we can.
Q Okay, good. So, two questions. First, on the pier. Is Ashdod really a viable alternative to the pier? My understanding is only 40 trucks a day are getting through the Erez Crossing. So if you could address that, that would be helpful.
And then secondly, has the administration discussed the Israeli strike against Mohammed Deif the other day, that used 2,000-pound bombs and killed scores of civilians, with the Israelis? Is this in line with producing civilian harm?
MR. KIRBY: So, on your first question: Yes.
On your second question: Have we discussed their airstrike targeting Mohammed Deif? Yes, of course, we have discussed that with them. I’m not going to detail the discussions or talk about what the Israelis have briefed us or not briefed us. They can speak to their operations as appropriate.
And, look, the reports of civilian casualties obviously give us great concern. We have said time and time again the number of civilian casualties as appropriate in any operation is zero. We understand that that’s a difficult benchmark to meet, particularly in a populated area like Gaza, but that doesn’t mean that our expectations for the Israelis aren’t that they’re going to try to have zero. And that’s not a new conversation. We’ve been having that with them for a very, very long time now.
But I’m not going to detail what the Israelis have shared with us about that strike in particular or how they executed it. They should speak to their operations.
Q Is there a sense that the operation was disproportionate, especially since they did not even get the target?
MR. KIRBY: I’m not going to go any further than I just did there, Lara. We continue to talk to the Israelis about their operations. We continue to make sure that they have what they need to defend themselves. And we will continue, as we have, to stress that they do so in the most discriminant and careful of ways when it comes to causing civilian casualties.
Q And on the pier: Do you acknowledge that sending it through Ashdod is going to drastically reduce the amount of aid that goes through?
MR. KIRBY: It’s going to be an added development. I mean, you know — look, I think what we want is to be — get caught trying here when it comes to getting aid into Gaza. And we never said the pier was going to be a panacea for everything. We said it was going to be hard. We said it was going to be — that there were going to be physical limitations in the amount of cargo that could flow across that pier. And you know what? It turns out there was.
Ashdod is not a panacea. Ashdod is not going to fix every humanitarian assistance problem in Gaza. But it’s going to be additive; it’s going to give us another way, another venue, another vehicle to get aid in. And it’s going to particularly be valuable in terms of facilitating the flow from Cyprus. Because now, because of the temporary pier, we’ve now established this process in Cyprus that we don’t want to let go of; we want to stay and keep that going. And Ashdod gives us a way — a terminus, if you will — for the humanitarian assistance that will be flowing in and out of Cyprus.
So, all that’s to the good. All that’s to the additive. All that’s to the positive. And it doesn’t obviate or take away the fact that we still need the additional crossings that the Israelis have opened to stay open. It doesn’t reduce the need to continue to work with the Israelis to increase the flow of trucks across those new crossings. It doesn’t take away our desire to see the Rafah crossing back open again — in the question I got before. And, if I might, it doesn’t take away any sense of energy or effort that we’re applying to get this ceasefire deal in place. Because, my goodness, if you can get six weeks of no fighting, man, you can make a big difference in terms of moving trucks around in Gaza.
So all of those things are going to continue. Ashdod will be added to that effort, but it’s not going to be — not going to be some big, old Band-Aid that’s going to solve all the problems.
MODERATOR: Thank you. And thank you, everyone, for joining. As always, if we weren’t able to get to you, feel free to reach out to our distro. Thanks.
12:50 P.M. EDT
